Can I be sued for that? Liability risk and the disclosure of clinically significant genetic research findings

Genomic researchers increasingly are faced with difficult decisions about whether, under what circumstances, and how to return research results and significant incidental findings to study participants. Many have argued that there is an ethical-maybe even a legal-obligation to disclose significant findings under some circumstances. At the international level, over the last decade there has begun to emerge a clear legal obligation to return significant findings discovered during the course of research. However, there is no explicit legal duty to disclose in the United States. This creates legal uncertainty that may lead to unmanaged variation in practice and poor quality care. This article discusses liability risks associated with the disclosure of significant research findings for investigators in the United States.

The increasing role of genetics and genomics in women's health

Genetic and genomic testing are a clinical reality in health care today. Persons at risk for disease or who are simply curious about their genomes can have them analyzed. An individual's genome is a function of ancestry, family history and personal health and environmental exposures. Clinical and pharmacologic information can be obtained through genomic analysis. Genomic testing can be done by health care providers but some results can now be obtained through direct-to-consumer tests. Many ethical questions are being raised regarding genomic testing. Nurses can provide more optimal care by understanding the process of genomic testing as well as the implications of the results.

Personal genomic information management and personalized medicine: challenges, current solutions, and roles of HIM professionals

In recent years, the term personalized medicine has received more and more attention in the field of healthcare. The increasing use of this term is closely related to the astonishing advancement in DNA sequencing technologies and other high-throughput biotechnologies. A large amount of personal genomic data can be generated by these technologies in a short time. Consequently, the needs for managing, analyzing, and interpreting these personal genomic data to facilitate personalized care are escalated. In this article, we discuss the challenges for implementing genomics-based personalized medicine in healthcare, current solutions to these challenges, and the roles of health information management (HIM) professionals in genomics-based personalized medicine.

Legal agreements and the governance of research commons: lessons from materials sharing in mouse genomics

Omics research infrastructure such as databases and bio-repositories requires effective governance to support pre-competitive research. Governance includes the use of legal agreements, such as Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs). We analyze the use of such agreements in the mouse research commons, including by two large-scale resource development projects: the International Knockout Mouse Consortium (IKMC) and International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC). We combine an analysis of legal agreements and semi-structured interviews with 87 members of the mouse model research community to examine legal agreements in four contexts: (1) between researchers; (2) deposit into repositories; (3) distribution by repositories; and (4) exchanges between repositories, especially those that are consortium members of the IKMC and IMPC. We conclude that legal agreements for the deposit and distribution of research reagents should be kept as simple and standard as possible, especially when minimal enforcement capacity and resources exist. Simple and standardized legal agreements reduce transactional bottlenecks and facilitate the creation of a vibrant and sustainable research commons, supported by repositories and databases.

Online questionnaire development: using film to engage participants and then gather attitudes towards the sharing of genomic data

How can a researcher engage a participant in a survey, when the subject matter may be perceived as 'challenging' or even be totally unfamiliar to the participant? The Genomethics study addressed this via the creation and delivery of a novel online questionnaire containing 10 integrated films. The films documented various ethical dilemmas raised by genomic technologies and the survey ascertained attitudes towards these. Participants were recruited into the research using social media, traditional media and email invitation. The film-survey strategy was successful: 11,336 initial hits on the survey website led to 6944 completed surveys. Participants included from those who knew nothing of the subject matter through to experts in the field of genomics (61% compliance rate), 72% of participants answered every single question. This paper summarises the survey design process and validation methods applied. The recruitment strategy and results from the survey are presented elsewhere.

Genomics education for the public: perspectives of genomic researchers and ELSI advisors

AIMS

For more than two decades genomic education of the public has been a significant challenge. As genomic information becomes integrated into daily life and routine clinical care, the need for public education is even more critical. We conducted a pilot study to learn how genomic researchers and ethical, legal, and social implications advisors who were affiliated with large-scale genomic variation studies have approached the issue of educating the public about genomics.

METHODS/RESULTS

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with researchers and advisors associated with the SNP/HAPMAP studies and the Cancer Genome Atlas Study. Respondents described approach(es) associated with educating the public about their study. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed by team review. Although few respondents described formal educational efforts, most provided recommendations for what should/could be done, emphasizing the need for an overarching entity(s) to take responsibility to lead the effort to educate the public. Opposing views were described related to: who this should be; the overall goal of the educational effort; and the educational approach. Four thematic areas emerged: What is the rationale for educating the public about genomics?; Who is the audience?; Who should be responsible for this effort?; and What should the content be? Policy issues associated with these themes included the need to agree on philosophical framework(s) to guide the rationale, content, and target audiences for education programs; coordinate previous/ongoing educational efforts; and develop a centralized knowledge base. Suggestions for next steps are presented.

CONCLUSION

A complex interplay of philosophical, professional, and cultural issues can create impediments to genomic education of the public. Many challenges, however, can be addressed by agreement on a guiding philosophical framework(s) and identification of a responsible entity(s) to provide leadership for developing/overseeing an appropriate infrastructure to support the coordination/integration/sharing and evaluation of educational efforts, benefiting consumers and professionals.

Essential elements of personalized medicine

OBJECTIVES

Genomic information has been promoted as the basis for "personalized" health care. We considered the benefits provided by genomic testing in context of the concept of personalized medicine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated current and potential uses of genomic testing in health care, using prostate cancer as an example, and considered their implications for individualizing or otherwise improving health care.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Personalized medicine is most accurately seen as a comprehensive effort to tailor health care to the individual, spanning multiple dimensions. While genomic tests will offer many potential opportunities to improve the delivery of care, including the potential for genomic research to offer opportunities to improve prostate cancer screening and treatment, such advances do not in themselves constitute a paradigm shift in the delivery of health care. Rather, personalized medicine is based on a partnership between clinician and patient that utilizes shared decision making to determine the best health care options among the available choices, weighing the patient's personal values and preferences together with clinical findings. This approach is particularly important for difficult clinical decisions involving uncertainty and trade-offs, such as those involved in prostate cancer screening and management. The delivery of personalized medicine also requires adequate health care access and assurance that basic health needs have been met. Substantial research investment will be needed to identify how genomic tests can contribute to this effort.

The fiduciary relationship model for managing clinical genomic "incidental" findings

This paper examines how the application of legal fiduciary principles (e.g., physicians' duty of loyalty and care, duty to inform, and duty act within the scope of authority), can serve as a framework to promote management of clinical genomic "incidental" or secondary target findings that is patient-centered and consistent with recognized patient autonomy rights. The application of fiduciary principles to the clinical genomic testing context gives rise to at least four physician fiduciary duties in conflict with recent recommendations by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). These recommendations have generated much debate among lawyers, clinicians, and bioethicists hence I believe this publication will be of value and interest to your readership.

Emerging issues in public health genomics

This review highlights emerging areas of interest in public health genomics. First, we describe recent advances in newborn screening (NBS), with a focus on the practice and policy implications of current and future efforts to expand NBS programs (e.g., via next-generation sequencing). Next, we detail research findings from the rapidly progressing field of epigenetics and epigenomics, highlighting ways in which our emerging understanding in these areas could guide future intervention and research efforts in public health. We close by considering various ethical, legal, and social issues posed by recent developments in public health genomics; these include policies to regulate access to personal genomic information, the need to enhance genetic literacy in both health professionals and the public, and challenges in ensuring that the benefits (and burdens) of genomic discoveries and applications are equitably distributed. We also note needs for future genomic research that integrates across basic and social sciences.

Managing incidental genomic findings in clinical trials: fulfillment of the principle of justice

Rafael Dal-Ré and colleagues discuss how incidental findings are likely to be viewed as potential benefits of research participation in genomics trials, and investigators should implement mechanisms to ensure provision of timely and appropriate care. Ensuring provision of such interventions in countries lacking a universal public health care system may prove challenging.

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Funding considerations for the disclosure of genetic incidental findings in biobank research

The use of biobanks in biomedical research has grown considerably in recent years. As a result of the increasing analysis of tissue samples stored in biobanks, there has also been an increase in the probability of discovering-in addition to the research target-incidental findings (IF). We identified 23 laws, policies and guidelines from international, regional and national organizations that provide guidance or identify the need for the disclosure of IF to research participants. We analyzed these instruments to determine their contemplation of the funding considerations for the disclosure of IF, examining their guidance for who discloses and the extent of researcher responsibilities. We found that the available normative documents provide little guidance to researchers and biobanks for how they should address cost and funding concerns associated with IF disclosure. It is therefore essential that the research and policy communities think through the financial implications of imposing an ethical responsibility to disclose IF. Concerted efforts should be made by policymakers, ethicists, researchers, clinicians and research institutions to develop detailed funding recommendations, potentially universal in application, to aid in the disclosure of IF, and we provide recommendations on steps that can be taken to ensure full consideration of these issues.

Participants' recall and understanding of genomic research and large-scale data sharing

As genomic researchers are urged to openly share generated sequence data with other researchers, it is important to examine the utility of informed consent documents and processes, particularly as these relate to participants' engagement with and recall of the information presented to them, their objective or subjective understanding of the key elements of genomic research (e.g., data sharing), as well as how these factors influence or mediate the decisions they make. We conducted a randomized trial of three experimental informed consent documents (ICDs) with participants (n = 229) being recruited to genomic research studies; each document afforded varying control over breadth of release of genetic information. Recall and understanding, their impact on data sharing decisions, and comfort in decision making were assessed in a follow-up structured interview. Over 25% did not remember signing an ICD to participate in a genomic study, and the majority (54%) could not correctly identify with whom they had agreed to share their genomic data. However, participants felt that they understood enough to make an informed decision, and lack of recall did not impact final data sharing decisions or satisfaction with participation. These findings raise questions about the types of information participants need in order to provide valid informed consent, and whether subjective understanding and comfort with decision making are sufficient to satisfy the ethical principle of respect for persons.

Incidental swimming with millstones

The medical genomics community needs carefully considered guidelines for the reporting of incidental findings.

Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science

The debate over return of individual research results and incidental findings to study participants is a key frontier in research ethics and practice. This is fundamentally a problem of translational science-a question of when information about an individual that is generated in research should be communicated for clinical attention, particularly as technologies such as whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing are increasingly used in clinical care. There is growing consensus that investigators should offer participants at least those individual findings of high clinical importance and actionability. Increasing attention to what information biobanks and secondary researchers owe people who provide data and specimens offers an opportunity to treat these source individuals as research partners. Cutting-edge issues include return of results in pediatric populations and return to kin and family, both before and after the death of the proband, as well as how to manage incidental findings in clinical sequencing. Progress will require an understanding of the continuum linking research and clinical care and developing standards and models for return.

The new genetics and informed consent: differentiating choice to preserve autonomy

The advent of new genetic and genomic technologies may cause friction with the principle of respect for autonomy and demands a rethinking of traditional interpretations of the concept of informed consent. Technologies such as whole-genome sequencing and micro-array based analysis enable genome-wide testing for many heterogeneous abnormalities and predispositions simultaneously. This may challenge the feasibility of providing adequate pre-test information and achieving autonomous decision-making. At a symposium held at the 11th World Congress of Bioethics in June 2012 (Rotterdam), organized by the International Association of Bioethics, these challenges were presented for three different areas in which these so-called 'new genetics' technologies are increasingly being applied: newborn screening, prenatal screening strategies and commercial personal genome testing. In this article, we build upon the existing ethical framework for a responsible set-up of testing and screening offers and reinterpret some of its criteria in the light of the new genetics. As we will argue, the scope of a responsible testing or screening offer should align with the purpose(s) of testing and with the principle of respect for autonomy for all stakeholders involved, including (future) children. Informed consent is a prerequisite but requires a new approach. We present preliminary and general directions for an individualized or differentiated set-up of the testing offer and for the informed consent process. With this article we wish to contribute to the formation of new ideas on how to tackle the issues of autonomy and informed consent for (public) healthcare and direct-to-consumer applications of the new genetics.

Evolving approaches to the ethical management of genomic data

The ethical landscape in the field of genomics is rapidly shifting. Plummeting sequencing costs, along with ongoing advances in bioinformatics, now make it possible to generate an enormous volume of genomic data about vast numbers of people. The informational richness, complexity, and frequently uncertain meaning of these data, coupled with evolving norms surrounding the sharing of data and samples and persistent privacy concerns, have generated a range of approaches to the ethical management of genomic information. As calls increase for the expanded use of broad or even open consent, and as controversy grows about how best to handle incidental genomic findings, these approaches, informed by normative analysis and empirical data, will continue to evolve alongside the science.

Incorporating genomics into breast and prostate cancer screening: assessing the implications

Individual risk prediction and stratification based on polygenic profiling may be useful in disease prevention. Risk-stratified population screening based on multiple factors including a polygenic risk profile has the potential to be more efficient than age-stratified screening. In this article, we summarize the implications of personalized screening for breast and prostate cancers. We report the opinions of multidisciplinary international experts who have explored the scientific, ethical, and logistical aspects of stratified screening. We have identified (i) the need to recognize the benefits and harms of personalized screening as compared with existing screening methods, (ii) that the use of genetic data highlights complex ethical issues including discrimination against high-risk individuals by insurers and employers and patient autonomy in relation to genetic testing of minors, (iii) the need for transparency and clear communication about risk scores, about harms and benefits, and about reasons for inclusion and exclusion from the risk-based screening process, and (iv) the need to develop new professional competences and to assess cost-effectiveness and acceptability of stratified screening programs before implementation. We conclude that health professionals and stakeholders need to consider the implications of incorporating genetic information in intervention strategies for health-care planning in the future.